The Journal of Educational Innovation in Science and Technology (JEIST) uses double-anonymous peer review. Authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors. This arrangement is intended to reduce the influence of identity, affiliation, reputation, nationality, gender, or personal background on the assessment of a manuscript.

Every manuscript submitted to JEIST passes through the following stages.

1. Administrative Check

The editorial staff checks the completeness of the submission, use of the journal template, manuscript format, author information, anonymization, ethics statements, competing interests, funding disclosures, and reference consistency. An incomplete submission is returned to the author for correction before editorial screening begins.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

An editor conducts an initial assessment of:

• the manuscript’s fit with the aims and scope of JEIST;
• the clarity of the research problem and purpose;
• the manuscript’s scholarly contribution;
• the theoretical basis and use of relevant literature;
• the suitability of the research design and methods;
• the adequacy of the data analysis;
• compliance with research and publication ethics;
• textual overlap with other sources; and
• the quality and readability of the writing.

The target time for the administrative check and initial editorial screening is 10–21 days after the submission is confirmed as complete. This period is a target rather than a guaranteed decision time. The process may take longer when files are incomplete, the manuscript is methodologically complex, ethical consultation is required, or the handling editor has a high workload.

An editor may reject a manuscript without external review if it falls outside the journal’s scope, lacks an adequate scholarly contribution, uses an unsuitable method, raises ethical concerns, breaches publication standards, or does not meet basic requirements for scholarly writing.

3. Reviewer Selection

A manuscript that passes initial screening is assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject and research method. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic competence, research experience, publication record, and absence of a competing interest with the authors or the work under review.

Reviewers must inform the editor if they:

• have a personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationship with an author;
• were previously involved in the research or manuscript;
• lack the expertise needed to assess the work;
• cannot complete the review within the requested period; or
• encounter information that may reveal an author’s identity.

The editor will appoint another reviewer whenever a competing interest or other circumstance could affect the independence of the assessment.

4. Review Process

Each review round is expected to be completed within 4–6 weeks after reviewers accept the invitation. The process may take longer when suitable reviewers are difficult to secure, a reviewer requests additional time, specialist expertise is needed, or an additional opinion is required.

Reviewers assess:

• the originality and contribution of the research;
• the clarity of the research questions or objectives;
• the relevance and adequacy of the literature review;
• the suitability of the design, sample, instruments, and procedures;
• the appropriateness of the analytical methods;
• the clarity of the results;
• the relationship among the evidence, discussion, and conclusions;
• the treatment of research limitations;
• the relevance and accuracy of the references;
• compliance with research ethics; and
• the organization and clarity of the manuscript.

Review reports should be specific, objective, respectful, and useful for revision. Personal criticism, disparaging language, requests for irrelevant citations, and attempts to impose a reviewer’s preferred position are not acceptable.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

A reviewer may recommend one of the following:

1. Accept without revision;
2. Accept subject to minor revision;
3. Reconsider after major revision;
4. Send for an additional review; or
5. Reject.

Reviewer recommendations inform the editor’s decision but do not determine it automatically. When reports differ substantially, the editor may reassess the manuscript, request clarification, or seek an additional review.

6. Editorial Decision

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly quality, fit with the journal’s scope, reviewer reports, the authors’ response, ethical compliance, and the extent of revision required. The possible decisions are:

• accept;
• minor revision;
• major revision;
• reject and invite resubmission as a new manuscript; or
• reject.

An editor may reach a decision that differs from the reviewers’ recommendations when there is a defensible scholarly or ethical reason. The basis for that decision is recorded in the editorial system.

7. Author Revision

Authors are normally given:

• 14–21 days to complete a minor revision; and
• 30–45 days to complete a major revision.

An extension may be requested before the revision deadline by explaining the reason to the editor. A manuscript that is not returned by the deadline and is not covered by an approved extension may be closed or treated as withdrawn.

A revised manuscript must be accompanied by a response letter addressing each editorial and reviewer comment in sequence. Authors should describe the changes made and identify their location in the manuscript. When a recommendation is not followed, the response should give a clear and respectful scholarly explanation.

8. Further Review

A minor revision may be assessed directly by the editor. A major revision is normally returned to the original reviewers. If an original reviewer is unavailable, the editor may appoint another qualified reviewer. A further review round is expected to take 3–5 weeks. More than one round of revision may be required if major concerns remain unresolved. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

9. Final Decision and Publication Process

After all comments have been addressed, the editor evaluates the revised manuscript and makes the final decision. The target time for communicating a final decision is 7–14 days after all required review reports and revision files have been received.

An accepted manuscript proceeds to language editing, technical editing, layout, proof checking, and publication. Authors must check and return the proof within the stated deadline. At this stage, changes are normally limited to typographical, formatting, or minor factual errors. Substantive changes require editorial approval.

10. Confidentiality

Manuscripts, research data, editorial correspondence, and review reports are confidential. Editors and reviewers must not:

• share a manuscript or review report with another person without the editor’s permission;
• use unpublished ideas, data, methods, or findings for personal advantage;
• contact an author directly about a manuscript under review; or
• upload a manuscript or review report to a publicly accessible generative AI service.

The duty of confidentiality continues after the review process has ended.

11. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers and Editors

Editorial decisions and scholarly assessments must be made by humans. Reviewers and editors may not use generative AI as a substitute for critical reading, methodological assessment, or editorial judgment.

Unpublished manuscripts and review reports must not be uploaded to public generative AI systems because doing so may breach confidentiality, copyright, and data-protection requirements. If a secure tool approved by the journal is used for limited assistance, its use must be disclosed to the editor, and the user remains responsible for checking the output.

12. Submissions from Editors or Editorial Board Members

Editors and editorial board members may submit manuscripts to JEIST, but they must not take part in screening, reviewer selection, editorial correspondence, or decision-making for their own work.

Such manuscripts are assigned to another editor without a competing interest and undergo the same peer-review procedure as other submissions. A statement describing the independent handling of the manuscript may be included in the published article.

13. Competing Interests

Editors and reviewers must disclose any interest that could affect, or reasonably be perceived to affect, their objectivity. A competing interest may arise from a personal relationship, research collaboration, academic rivalry, institutional connection, financial interest, or previous involvement with the manuscript.

A person with a competing interest must not handle or review the submission.

14. Complaints and Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision when they can identify a factual error in the assessment, a competing interest, or a procedural irregularity. An appeal must be submitted in writing, quote the manuscript number, and provide supporting reasons or evidence.

An appeal based only on disagreement with an academic decision, without a substantive basis, will not be considered. Appeals are handled by an editor or publisher representative who was not involved in the original decision. The outcome of the appeal is final for the journal.

15. Editorial Time Targets

JEIST uses the following time targets when managing manuscripts:

• administrative check and initial editorial screening: 10–21 days;
• each peer-review round: 4–6 weeks;
• minor revision by the authors: 14–21 days;
• major revision by the authors: 30–45 days;
• further review after revision: 3–5 weeks; and
• final decision after complete reports and revisions are received: 7–14 days.

These periods begin when all required files are confirmed as complete. Processing times may vary according to the complexity of the research, reviewer availability, the number of revision rounds, ethical concerns, and the timeliness of the authors’ responses.

JEIST does not promise a decision or completed peer review in less than one day. Any processing-time information displayed on the journal website should be based on verifiable workflow data and updated regularly.